Tragic. Right now over 50 dead and 200+ injured. Shooter is dead. Motive unknown at this time.

Given that it was a Country Music Festival and country music fans "have a reputation of trending strongly towards conservatisim" Going to put decent odds(better than 60%) on AntiFa or simply some other flavor of unhinged left-wing nutjob(Washington DC shooting). As they've evidently ID'd the shooter, I'm sure more will be unearthed shortly.

Given that it was a Country Music Festival and country music fans "have a reputation of trending strongly towards conservatisim" Going to put decent odds(better than 60%) on AntiFa or simply some other flavor of unhinged left-wing nutjob. As they've evidently ID'd the shooter, I'm sure more will be unearthed shortly.

Unlikely to be specifically antifa. The shooter was 64, and most antifa members are living in their parents' basement.

Possibly a left-wing nut, but the reports of a military-style, belt-fed automatic weapon suggest ex-military and give me doubts. I'm leaning towards a PTSD-like scenario based on just a hunch.

Unlikely to be specifically antifa. The shooter was 64, and most antifa members are living in their parents' basement.

Possibly a left-wing nut, but the reports of a military-style, belt-fed automatic weapon suggest ex-military and give me doubts. I'm leaning towards a PTSD-like scenario based on just a hunch.

You posted as I added the DC shooting comparison, where that shooter was 66.

Ex-military makes it more probable that a conservative background exists, but doesn't make it a certainty. It also doesn't prevent their having become Democrats/liberals after their military service. (I knew plenty of Democrats during my time on Active duty during the Clinton/Bush years) Which isn't to mention examples like John Kerry, or a handful of current Congressional Democrats.

Whether this latest mass shooting was an old white guy or a young Muslim guy, the strong odds are that he is crazy. I'll guess that this is no more an act of terrorism than the San Bernardino shooting was an act of terrorism. A very small fraction of the population are crazy and thus do evil acts.

Now, the nature of this horrible mass shooting does refute the sometimes-heard counter-arguments that if assault weapons were not so available, the shooter would use a knife, or that open carry is the panacea for gun violence (at least if some of the 10,000 people being shot at were carrying)

He had something like 10 weapons and checked into the hotel days before. I don't think you meant PTSD, Josh.

No chance of a PTSD-like problem? Remind me again how "American Sniper" Chris Kyle's story ended.

Again, my hunch is on the slimmest of evidence. It's easy to say 'mentally ill' in at least some fashion or another once organized terror is out, but I went more specific and I guess we'll see how I did.

This seems to happen in any mass shooting. We seem to talk about mental illness as if it's a decision between cold calculated (and sane) murderer vs a randomly triggered mentally ill person lashing out violently and spontaneously. I don't see how we settled on that being a binary choice or even relevant.

Given that it was a Country Music Festival and country music fans "have a reputation of trending strongly towards conservatisim" Going to put decent odds(better than 60%) on AntiFa or simply some other flavor of unhinged left-wing nutjob(Washington DC shooting). As they've evidently ID'd the shooter, I'm sure more will be unearthed shortly.

Shooter was just described on WaPo as someone who enjoyed country music, so that may be out.

It's funny how we all (myself included) naturally have this urgent need to fit the shooter onto "not my team". As if this person is representative anyways.

No chance of a PTSD-like problem? Remind me again how "American Sniper" Chris Kyle's story ended.

Again, my hunch is on the slimmest of evidence. It's easy to say 'mentally ill' in at least some fashion or another once organized terror is out, but I went more specific and I guess we'll see how I did.

Perhaps not doing too well on Routh, we'll see how you do on this guy.

Quote

He had been struggling for years with what doctors had diagnosed as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, though his symptoms suggested he was suffering from a more serious mental illness. He would later tell a forensic psychologist that he believed his coworkers at a cabinet shop were cannibals who planned to eat him.

My limited understanding is that people who suffer from PTSD are more likely than others to lash out violently, but its more of a spontaneous thing and often due to some kind of provocation or general environmental cue.

It's funny how we all (myself included) naturally have this urgent need to fit the shooter onto "not my team". As if this person is representative anyways.

It’s a natural human thing to try to understand something by categorizing it. We all do it. It’s way to early for it but, of course, that wont stop human nature. I don’t think we can categorize the shooter as crazy either. We do that because it’s difficult to think a sane person would do such a thing but the reality is he may have been 100% sane and reasonable and still willing to commit such an evil act. That’s a hard thing for sane people to wrap their minds around so we label him insane as a reflex - he can’t be on the “sane team”. We’ll get the full picture on this guy over the next few days. I hope it’s not connected to any political or religious motivations.

I’m very curious about the access to automatic weaponry (I’m assuming it was a fully automatic, sounded like it). That is not easy to get and requires extensive background checks to obtain legally. Of course, it seems this guy only had a few moving violations or speeding tickets in his background so any background check may not have detected anything.

No military record found, so my guess was probably wrong. The testimony given by his brother seems to indicate that this really was some sort of aberration in his behavior and that he wasn't political or affiliated with ideology.

No military record found, so my guess was probably wrong. The testimony given by his brother seems to indicate that this really was some sort of aberration in his behavior and that he wasn't political or affiliated with ideology.

He evidently was a DoD contractor for 3 years, or rather, he worked for a DoD contractor for 3 years in the 1980's, which doesn't necessarily mean he actually did anything specifically for DoD.

Brother indicated he(the shooter) was rather apolitical previously(and still was to his knowledge-however good/current that knowledge may be), ditto on the religious front. Could still turn into a "was politically neutral until the events surrounding the Trump election, at which point 'he became active'" and for whatever reason(known (to him) leanings of family?) didn't communicate this with his siblings.

That said, not every family is particularly close knit, or particularly communicative with each other about things, or even most things. So I'm not going to rely too heavily on statements to the press from a single immediate family member.

Given he was 30+ floors up from the crowd, that eliminates the, "If only open carry was more prevalent", argument.

He was shooting from the 32nd floor from the press account I just read. Someone on the ground level and 100+ yards away is going to have a hard time returning fire with a hand gun. (And would endanger a large number of people in the building near the shooter)

Quote

Also, while I can't say what falls under the "assault weapon" umbrella as you are using the term, it is no small matter to acquire a fully automatic weapon.

Recalling from memory, but the press account I just read(which cited Fox News) says he had multiple(legally obtained) AR-15's, which had subsequently used "conversion kits" on to make automatic(evidently illegal to perform without the right paperwork according to a quick Google search, but the kits themselves seem to exist in a legal loophole, which makes them easy to obtain). He also evidently had other equipment also in his possession as well.

No chance of a PTSD-like problem? Remind me again how "American Sniper" Chris Kyle's story ended.

Perhaps not doing too well on Routh, we'll see how you do on this guy.

Quote

He had been struggling for years with what doctors had diagnosed as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, though his symptoms suggested he was suffering from a more serious mental illness. He would later tell a forensic psychologist that he believed his coworkers at a cabinet shop were cannibals who planned to eat him.

My limited understanding is that people who suffer from PTSD are more likely than others to lash out violently, but its more of a spontaneous thing and often due to some kind of provocation or general environmental cue.

Yeah, my understanding of things is that the PTSD "type" trends more towards being "triggery" in the sense that certain things(or lists of things) can "set them off" and cause them to respond in any of a broad range of ways depending the nature of the cause and what their profession was. Which is where you get stories of the PTSD Vietnam vet who'd have a nightmare and nearly kill their spouse by reflex when being awakened from that (nightmare) state. Or simply crumbling into a gibbering heap in other cases. Anything from a flash of light(bomb blast), to a sudden loud sound(which can compare to either explosions or gunfire), or even smells can trigger a traumatic memory flashback with corresponding response and those are just the more common manifestations.

But for this shooter, it is highly unlikely we're talking about a combat related trauma with what is known about him. And the nature of this shooting also goes well beyond the scope of any "normal" response that would be expected from PTSD alone. There'd have to be at least a few other mental disorders also in play, which doesn't appear to be the case here at this time.

Given that it was a Country Music Festival and country music fans "have a reputation of trending strongly towards conservatisim" Going to put decent odds(better than 60%) on AntiFa or simply some other flavor of unhinged left-wing nutjob(Washington DC shooting). As they've evidently ID'd the shooter, I'm sure more will be unearthed shortly.

Shooter was just described on WaPo as someone who enjoyed country music, so that may be out.

Just because he enjoyed country music doesn't mean he was particularly conservative. I mean hey, The Dixie Chicks weren't exactly icons of conservatism 10+ years ago. Although they did basically destroy their domestic fan base when they spoke out against Bush(43) how they did. Some country artists are more openly political than others. The country singer performing at the time of the shooting doesn't have anything on wiki to indicate his politics, and I'm not inclined to dig very hard on that front, although the shooter may have done so--and thus concluded anyone attending his concerts were "the enemy."

Quote

It's funny how we all (myself included) naturally have this urgent need to fit the shooter onto "not my team". As if this person is representative anyways.

I'm more going for the refrain that's been getting harped on for a while now. When the (extreme)left-wing isn't getting what it wants, it tends to get violent quickly(even against their own--Gabby Gifford's). Trump is stirring up the left like nothing we've ever seen before. "The Left" as a whole, has stepped up their rhetoric in response, and has moved into rather incendiary comments at points in time which can be taken as incitations to violence against their opposition. So thus I gave "a better than 60% chance" of this ultimately linking back to the political left.

As this doesn't quite strike me as "an (international) Islamic style attack" (although they may now try to duplicate it) that the calculus as to "which political slant would target a country music event?" Left it as a question of probability or right wing vs left wing. With "Country" typically viewed as being "conservative" that tilted the odds in favor of left-wing violence, particularly in light of other recent events over the past year. But as I know there are liberals/Democrats on the country scene as well, I cannot completely rule out it being a right-winger either, thus the 60/40-ish split.

That the attacker is "mentally unhinged" in some way kind of went without saying. While I will agree with other statements that a rational person can eventually reach a point where killing becomes "justified" I don't think anyone(in "the reasonably sane" category) thinks we're anywhere near the point of killing random people at entertainment venues is a rational decision that will further any kind of agenda except fear/terror. In that respect, the DC shooting was positively rational compared to this one, at least he targeted ranking government officials "on the other side." And that shooter was still freaking crazy.

Quote from: D.W. on Today at 10:38:32 AMGiven he was 30+ floors up from the crowd, that eliminates the, "If only open carry was more prevalent", argument.

He was shooting from the 32nd floor from the press account I just read. Someone on the ground level and 100+ yards away is going to have a hard time returning fire with a hand gun. (And would endanger a large number of people in the building near the shooter)

This was my point. The knee jerk reaction from pro-gun side is that open carry could be a solution. In this case, that's not true.

While you may be correct on the conversion kits, (I still hadn't read that yet), my point was that the knee jerk reaction from gun-control side is, "these weapons should be illegal." In this case, they already are.

I think that providing relatively easy access to a capability to shoot 500+ people in a little over 10 seconds is an intrinsic flaw, because of with over 300+ million people who are citizens of the US, some will do things like this.

The Second Battle of Fallujah (November-December 2004) is viewed by many as the bloodiest and most intense battle of the Iraq War. According to Wikipedia 95 Americans died over 6 weeks; 54 between November 7th and 16th.

I'm pretty freaking liberal but some of the stuff coming from the left here is infuriating. More gun control laws wouldn't have made a difference. The weapons he had were already illegal. I don't usually buy into right wing hyperbole but this time, I agree. People are shamelessly pushing an agenda whilst people are upset and emotional. And ignoring the facts while they do it.

The bumb stocks could be made illegal. It's illegal to use them but not illegal to buy them. That's odd and could be corrected. He could still get one illegally, of course, but we may as well not make it so easy.

I think it could Greg. But in THIS case, it appears (without further info) that the weapons used were either modified illegally or acquired under more strict guidelines than typically available.

If the modifications exist in some legal loophole, I'm all for closing it.

If these were "legal" fully automatic weapons, something AFAIK you need to be a federally licensed, registered gunsmith or some such to pull off; then I'm for taking another look at these laws.

If your argument is that the legal rifles that were (confirmed yet?) modified should not be publicly available, well that one gets a lot more messy. Maybe we do need to consider that a "legal" rifle shouldn't be this easy to modify into an illegal rifle?

*This* mass shooting, may not fit into a simple solution we can legislate. Particularly if it is confirmed the guns were already illegal. If *this* incident is going to provoke changes in law, shouldn't those changes address preventing a similar incident?

If that's not the intent, fine. I get it, we have a gun violence problem. Any excuse to try and tackle it, people will take. I just believe that that reaction should accomplish something tangible.

If this guy only had completely legal, non-modified semi-automatic weapons, the death toll would have been much less, yes.

But how many rounds can you get off in one minute using semi-automatic weapons? Maybe he wouldn't have set a record, but I expect the toll would still have been obscene. His choice of targets made it a given that he didn't need any kind of accuracy to kill many, many people.

Greg I'm on the fence about the 2nd Amendment myself. But those other countries don't have such a thing to get in the way. It's cute that Australia has offered to "help" the US with such a thing but they didn't have the 2nd to contend with when they banned guns.

The Supreme Court has spoken on this. If you expect people to respect them on something like gay marriage, then you need to respect them in turn on their interpretation of the 2nd.

If gun control cannot reduce the risk of mass shootings, please provide a hypothesis why every other wealthy country has more rigorous gun control and a far lower risk of mass shootings.

The analogy has always been a red herring, as those countries have neither the mores nor the particular circumstances of the U.S. They also don't have the same government. It is possible in theory for something to be a uniquely American problem without it necessarily being a gun problem.

There are no absolute rights enumerated in the constitution - they all have, and are subject to, restrictions. Those restrictions can certainly be put up for debate.

A limit on the number and types of weapons, for instance, could be discussed in a rational country.

The bigger problem is that the religion of guns in the USA has taken over, where the possession and use of guns is akin to a religious experience for too many. The idea of using guns has been normalized to an extent that is alien to any other modern country.

What I find interesting is that the Left usually proposes violating the Second amendment to solve this problem, when they could even more effectively solve it by violating other civil rights. Why one line and not the other is okay to cross is a bit of a question.

Why not violate the First Amendment and ban anyone from congregating in such numbers in the first place, would certainly limit both the ease of hitting people and the number available. Why not invade the privacy of at risk or dangerous people to ensure they are not plotting against the people?

Why not violate the Third? Surely if we stuck soldiers in private homes they could check on the inhabitants and ensure that they weren't engaged in illegal activities or secretly stockpiling deadly arsenals.

Why not violate the Fourth? Surely anyone interested in public accommodations should be required to prove they haven't carried a deadly weapon (or nearly 20) into the public accommodation? Why not search them? Heck, why not send federal officers into everyone's home routinely to check to ensure they are not engaged in dangerous activities?

We can just take anything dangerous away and take away the person who owns it while were at it, they can be conveniently reeducated or dissappeared (and violate the 5th and 6th).

Why not prohibit any buildings overlooking any open air venue?

Heck, people are dangerous in both cars and airplanes, wouldn't it be better to restrict travel to keep people safe?

This was a real tragedy. It's impossible to really comprehend how someone could do this, and yes this kind of abuse of the right to bear arms is a perfect story for those that want to ban them. It speaks directly to the idea that we can not trust people with the power to kill. It's still bizarre that against a backdrop of distrust for the police, the military and the government one would be in favor of disarming the citizens, but these situations make it appealing. But if we are going to be a free people, we have to have the right to protect ourselves including with fire arms.

Is there anybody here talking about violating the 2nd, or are they talking about reasonable limits on the second? Unless you think that is the only enumerated right that should not be reasonably restricted..?

When you weaken respect for one part of the Constitution, you weaken respect for all of it.

Again, I'm on the fence on the worth of the 2nd amendment but the solution to that is a majority of states overturning it, like Prohibition.

It grinds my gears when certain people on the left want to ignore a piece of the Constitution because it's inconvenient. Mostly because I adore the 1st and if we just ignored that when people were upset it would open the doors for certain parts of Christianity to TalIban the US.

Is there anybody here talking about violating the 2nd, or are they talking about reasonable limits on the second? Unless you think that is the only enumerated right that should not be reasonably restricted..?

I'll bite. What do you think could have been done to prevent this. What restrictions?

Bring them all to a firing range. Have them fire one of each, with and without suppressors. Let them then decide and vote on it. I'll stand by their decision at that point. Short of that, going by what they "believe" these accessories do based on movies and TV? I don't want them anywhere near my laws.

Is a bump-stock ban reasonable? (not sure presently if federal or state law already bans them) I'd say it should be at a minimum restricted as other fully automatic weapons are.

Is it reasonable to ban AR weapons which lend themselves to such modifications into crossing the legal / illegal line? I don't know. Again, I would ask that any law maker become familiar with the material they are attempting to legislate.

My opinions on firearm regulation are the same as my opinions on regulating the internet and electronic privacy. I want my lawmakers informed. THEN they can start making proposals. I don't want them lobbied by someone trying to make a profit (or push an ill informed or much more expansive agenda) and just "taking the word of experts". I want them to understand what they are doing!

This potentially lowers the death toll in mass shootings, but doesn't seem to address the issue of mass shootings. The difficulty is in tracking which arena is the right one to address is assessing whether anything can be done. If the odd mass shooter is a symptom of some other pervasive social illness then the illness would have to be identified and addressed in a context outside of guns.

Oh, and let's not forget that things are going to be A LOT more muddy within a handful of years. While it hasn't been in the news for awhile, 3D printers of various materials are only improving in capabilities and decreasing in price.

When we legislate mechanical components (or even whole firearms) off the streets, what happens when anyone can just "print" an illegal weapon?

Our tech is threatening to (and in many cases already has) outpace our ability to legislate. At least our ability under current thinking and statutes.

We are running out of time to settle on our rights to privacy and rights to ownership of things. The ability to create legislative bottlenecks and blockades is disappearing. Once this is widely understood we either need some big shifts in how we approach our individual rights, or accept, now unthinkable, sacrifices in privacy.

My opinions on firearm regulation are the same as my opinions on regulating the internet and electronic privacy. I want my lawmakers informed. THEN they can start making proposals. I don't want them lobbied by someone trying to make a profit (or push an ill informed or much more expansive agenda) and just "taking the word of experts". I want them to understand what they are doing!

Unless I'm mistaken, those same lawmakers actively restrict the CDC from gathering information that would allow them to become informed in the first place.

Unless I'm mistaken, those same lawmakers actively restrict the CDC from gathering information that would allow them to become informed in the first place.

Which, I agree is asinine. I have no problem with raw data being included. I take it for granted that both sides will attempt to politicize that data for their own ends, but more info seems good to me.

My only problem is when you try to quantify data that is hard (or near impossible) to gather and use it as an argument. The argument regarding lawful firearm carrying or ownership in preventing or defending against crime being the most prominent example.

Data regarding gun crimes, suicides and accidental injuries or deaths are all valuable.

What I find interesting is that the Left usually proposes violating the Second amendment to solve this problem, when they could even more effectively solve it by violating other civil rights. Why one line and not the other is okay to cross is a bit of a question.

Why not violate the First Amendment and ban anyone from congregating in such numbers in the first place, would certainly limit both the ease of hitting people and the number available. Why not invade the privacy of at risk or dangerous people to ensure they are not plotting against the people?

Why not violate the Third? Surely if we stuck soldiers in private homes they could check on the inhabitants and ensure that they weren't engaged in illegal activities or secretly stockpiling deadly arsenals.

Why not violate the Fourth? Surely anyone interested in public accommodations should be required to prove they haven't carried a deadly weapon (or nearly 20) into the public accommodation? Why not search them? Heck, why not send federal officers into everyone's home routinely to check to ensure they are not engaged in dangerous activities?

We can just take anything dangerous away and take away the person who owns it while were at it, they can be conveniently reeducated or dissappeared (and violate the 5th and 6th).

Why not prohibit any buildings overlooking any open air venue?

Heck, people are dangerous in both cars and airplanes, wouldn't it be better to restrict travel to keep people safe?

This was a real tragedy. It's impossible to really comprehend how someone could do this, and yes this kind of abuse of the right to bear arms is a perfect story for those that want to ban them. It speaks directly to the idea that we can not trust people with the power to kill. It's still bizarre that against a backdrop of distrust for the police, the military and the government one would be in favor of disarming the citizens, but these situations make it appealing. But if we are going to be a free people, we have to have the right to protect ourselves including with fire arms.

That's not a new question. I think the standard is narrowly-tailored, minimal restriction of rights to accomplish a valid goal. All of your examples are much greater restrictions on rights than placing restrictions on gun ownership. Nor are they narrowly tailored.

The shootings are getting ridiculous, but I'm baffled by the number of people who trot out solutions that don't even apply to the latest situation.

A bold and honest legislator would be trying to repeal or amend the 2nd Amendment. Amend is probably dead in the water with even the most mild of restrictions. Repealing would be laughable. 3/4 of states? We couldn't get 3/4 of states to agree that Apple Pie is American - it would all depend on which party introduced it which states would object.

The other mechanism is calling a constitutional convention. That only takes 2/3 of the states, and it is a horribly frightening concept.

Quote

There are now 27 states in which the legislatures have passed resolutions calling for a convention that would propose a balanced-budget amendment.

Except once they convene, they can do literally anything they want. Above the Supreme Court, Above the original constitution, not representative by population, and the only thing left to stop them would be the ratification process - which they would define.

Is there anybody here talking about violating the 2nd, or are they talking about reasonable limits on the second? Unless you think that is the only enumerated right that should not be reasonably restricted..?

Both if past history is any indication. Usually there will also be a call for more restrictive versions of actions that have had little to no impact historically on safety yet imposed pretty big burdens on legitimate usage.

That's not a new question. I think the standard is narrowly-tailored, minimal restriction of rights to accomplish a valid goal. All of your examples are much greater restrictions on rights than placing restrictions on gun ownership. Nor are they narrowly tailored.

Considering in many cases, the call on gun rights is close to 100% ban, I actually dispute that my examples are greater restrictions on rights. Second, in no circumstance are gun control options narrowly tailored, they are routinely examples of collective punishment where millions of legitimate users have their rights impaired to achieve little or no gain over illegal usages.

Maybe you have something different in mind? Lay out your narrowly tailored gun control ideas.